Table Of ContentDemographic
Research
Monographs
Th omas K. Burch
Model-Based
Demography
Essays on Integrating Data, Technique
and Th eory
Demographic Research Monographs
A Series of the Max Planck Institute
for Demographic Research
Editor-in-chief
JamesW.Vaupel
MaxPlanckInstituteforDemographicResearch
Rostock,Germany
Moreinformationaboutthisseriesathttp://www.springer.com/series/5521
Thomas K. Burch
Model-Based Demography
Essays on Integrating Data, Technique
and Theory
ThomasK.Burch
DepartmentofSociology
andPopulationResearchGroup
UniversityofVictoria
Victoria,BC,Canada
ISSN1613-5520 ISSN2197-9286 (electronic)
DemographicResearchMonographs
ISBN978-3-319-65432-4 ISBN978-3-319-65433-1 (eBook)
DOI10.1007/978-3-319-65433-1
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2017951857
©TheEditor(s)(ifapplicable)andTheAuthor(s)2018.Thisbookispublishedopenaccess.
Open Access This book is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicateifchangesweremade.
Theimagesorotherthirdpartymaterialinthisbookareincludedin thebook’sCreativeCommons
license,unlessindicatedotherwiseinacreditlinetothematerial.Ifmaterialisnotincludedinthebook’s
CreativeCommonslicenseandyourintendeduseisnotpermittedbystatutoryregulationorexceedsthe
permitteduse,youwillneedtoobtainpermissiondirectlyfromthecopyrightholder.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publicationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexempt
fromtherelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
Thepublisher,theauthorsandtheeditorsaresafetoassumethattheadviceandinformationinthis
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained
hereinor for anyerrors oromissionsthat may havebeenmade. Thepublisher remainsneutralwith
regardtojurisdictionalclaimsinpublishedmapsandinstitutionalaffiliations.
Printedonacid-freepaper
ThisSpringerimprintispublishedbySpringerNature
TheregisteredcompanyisSpringerInternationalPublishingAG
Theregisteredcompanyaddressis:Gewerbestrasse11,6330Cham,Switzerland
For my wife,
Karen Halling Burch,
and in memory of my son,
Thaddeus J. Burch
Preface
Thepapersinthiscollection–mostofthempreviouslypublished–arethefruitsof
anintellectualodysseyoverthelastdecadesofmycareerasasociologist/demog-
rapher. Beginning in the late 1980s, longstanding questions about the status of
demographyasasciencecametothesurface,andIbegantopursuethemactively.
Lookingback,IrealizethatatsomepointIbecamelessademographerandmorea
demography critic – cf. art critic or music critic – and an amateur philosopher of
science.
Mycentralconcernhasbeenwiththeroleandstatusoftheoryindemography.
For some, it was enough that demography did rigorous analysis of data using
standard demographic and statistical techniques, notably emerging methods of
multivariate analysis as applied to micro-data files. Theoretical explanations and
modelsofbehavioralprocessesoftenwerelefttootherdisciplines.Beckerandthe
microeconomistshadbecometheleadingtheoristsofdemographicbehavior,while
social demographers made relatively little systematic use of the large fund of
relevanttheoryfromsociology,socialpsychology,andculturalanthropology.
Microeconomictheoryenjoyedwidespreadacceptance,ifnotconsensus,among
economists. And it was stated in clear, unambiguous form, often mathematically.
Social-behavioral theory, by contrast, was formulated with less rigor, in loose
verbalform,andcommandednothingapproachingconsensus.
Asagraduatestudentinsociologyanddemographyinthelate1950s,Ihadtaken
several excellent courses on social theory and cultural anthropology (Wilbert
Moore; Marion J. Levy, Jr.; and Melvin Tumin) and trained in demography and
statistics with leaders in the field – Frank Notestein, Ansley Coale, and Frederick
Stephan. But there was little integration. My dissertation was a largely technical
work on measurement of internal migration, with virtually no behavioral content
andnotheory.Someofmysociologyprofessorsweredismayed.Mydemography
andstatisticsprofessorsweresatisfiedifnotecstatic.AsIpursuedmycareer,Ilived
thisschizoidlifeasanempiricaldemographerwithaninterestintheory–asmall
exampleofthesplitbetweentheoryandempiricalresearchfamouslydescribedby
Robert Merton (1957). With a primary commitment to demography, my
vii
viii Preface
relationshiptotheory,likethatofthediscipline,wascharacterizedbyambivalence
andmalaise.
Inreviewingthedevelopmentofmythinkingonthesematters,Icansingleout
three works as crucial. Robert Hanneman’s Computer-Assisted Theory Building:
Modeling Dynamic Social Systems (1988) provided a detailed introduction to
dynamic systems modeling as a potential theoretical tool for demographers and
other empirical social scientists. It promised rigor in the statement and manipula-
tionoftheoreticalmodels–includingcomplexdynamicmodelswithfeedbacksand
delays – and reoriented thinking away from comparative statics and equilibrium
toward process and change. To this day, I remain puzzled why social scientists,
includingdemographers,havemadesolittleuseofthispowerfulanalytictool.
Anearlierwork–discoveredmuchlaterandbyaccident –wasExplanationin
SocialScience:ASystemParadigmbyEugeneMeehan,apoliticalscientist(1968).
Meehan provided a convincing critique of logical positivism as a dead-end
approachtosocialscienceandsetforthapracticalalternativeinvolving‘systems’
– roughly equivalent to theoretical models. He also insisted on the importance of
purpose or aim, as well as logical consistency with data, in evaluating models. A
modelwell-suitedtoonepurposemaynotbeadequateforanother.
Ronald Giere’s Science Without Laws (1999) appeared to me to support
Meehan’s general approach, while placing it in the context of late twentieth-
centuryphilosophyofscience.Accessibletothenonprofessionalphilosopher,this
workarguesthatthemodel,notthelaw,isthecentralelementinscience.Models
arenot‘true’inanystrongsenseofthatword.Theysimplyfitsomeportionofthe
real world closely enough in certain respects to make them useful for certain
purposes.Atbest,theyembody‘realismwithouttruth.’
Takentogether,theseworksconvincedmethatdemographyhadmoreandbetter
theorythangenerallyrecognizedandpointedthewaytowardfruitfulsystematiza-
tionandcodification.Demographycouldbeafull-fledgeddiscipline,withitsample
foundationofempiricaldataandtechniquebalancedbyarichbodyoftheory.
Fromtimetotime,IhavewonderedwhetherIhadtouchedbottomwithrespect
to the philosophical and methodological issues involved in demography as a
science. Eventually, I realized there probably is no bottom. Professional students
of science – philosophers, sociologists of science, and cognitive psychologists –
disagreeonmanypoints.ItisnotlikelythatIwouldbeablebeatthemattheirown
game and come up with a definitive view on science. I agree with Paul Teller
(2001), who has warned against ‘the perfect model model’ of science, and with
Samir Okasha who writes:‘Like mostphilosophical questions, these questions do
not admit of final answers, but in grappling with them we learn much about the
natureandlimitsofscientificknowledge’(2002,p.39).
Inanycase,Iamconvincedthatthemodel-basedviewofscienceasdeveloped
by Giere and others has much to offer demography as a liberating view of demo-
graphic theory. Its acceptance and routine application to our work could lead to a
richcollection–atoolkit–ofusefultheoreticalmodels,general,middlerange,and
Preface ix
“low range.” As noted above, we can achieve a better balance among data,
technique,andtheoryandbecomeacompletescienceofhumanpopulation.1
Even after a career of nearly 60 years in demography, however, I may be
presumptuous tositinjudgmenton the disciplineandtosuggestdirectionsfor its
futuredevelopment.ButIhavebeenencouragedbymanyotherdemographerswho,
overtheyears,haveexpressedtheirconcernforthecharacterandstatusofthefield,
theirlingeringfeelingthatsomethingwasmissing.Itseemstomethatthemodel-
based approach toscience willencourage andenable us toprovidewhat has been
missing,notablyacarefullycraftedbodyoftheory.
But just as there is no perfect model in science, there is no perfect model of
science. And I am not a philosopher of science nor familiar with the practice and
accomplishmentsofallthesciences,social,behavioral,biological,andphysical.I
candonobetterthantoclosewithaquotefromE.O.Wilson.InthePrefacetoOn
Human Nature, in which he argues for the usefulness of evolutionary biology for
understandinghumanbehavior,hecomments:“Imighteasilybewrong”(p.x).But
itwillbeenoughifthisworkpromotesalivelydiscussionofwhatdemographyis
andmightbecome.
As lightly edited versions of papers written at different times and in different
contexts, many of the following chapters repeat central ideas, for example, the
contrastsbetweenlogicalempiricismandthemodel-basedapproachtoscience,or
theideathatmuchof‘technical’demographycanbeviewedastheory.Sometimes,
this repetition may seem unnecessary. But it has the advantage that chapters are
freestanding,sothatthereadercanreadlaterchapterswithouthavingreadallthat
preceded.
Victoria,BC ThomasK.Burch
Canada
References
Giere,R.N.(1999).Sciencewithoutlaws.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
Hanneman, R. (1988). Computer-Assisted theory building: Modeling dynamics social systems.
NewburyPark:SagePublications.
Meehan,E.(1968).Explanationinsocialscience:Asystemparadigm.Homewood:TheDorsey
Press.
Okasha,S.(2002).Philosophyofscience:Averyshortintroduction.Oxford:OxfordUniversity
Press.
Teller,P.(2001).Twilightoftheperfectmodelmodel.Erkenntnis,55,393–415.
Wilson,E.O.(1978).Onhumannature.CambridgeMA:HarvardUniversityPress.
1Adoptionofamodel-basedviewofsciencehastheaddedadvantageofencouragingcooperation
andsynthesisacrossdisciplines.Idevelopthisthoughtin:“Themodel-basedviewofscience:an
encouragementtointerdisciplinarywork.”21stCenturySociety1(June2006)39–58.Iwasunable
toobtainpermissiontorepublishinthisopen-sourcecollection.
Acknowledgments
IbeginbyacknowledgingthesupportofJimVaupel,FoundingDirectoroftheMax
Planck Institute for Demographic Research, without whom this book would not
be. Many years ago, he expressed interest in my work and urged me to bring it
togetherasabookormonograph.InacasualconversationattheRostockerRing,in
September 2015, Ivoiced regret that I had never followed through on his sugges-
tion.Hisreply:‘It’snottoolate.’Thusendedmyretirementforawhile.
FransWillekens,alsoat MaxPlanck,worked outthecontractual arrangements
with the institute and regularly reassured me of the value of the project to the
discipline.Givenmyage,Ihadsomedoubtsabouttakingonasubstantialeditorial/
writing project. But it was clear to me that if Jim Vaupel and Frans Willekens
thoughtitworthwhile,itwasworththetimeandeffort.
UponFransWillekens’retirementfromMaxPlanck,AndreSchmandketookup
the administrative tasks and helped negotiate a contract with Springer-Verlag.
Further negotiations with Springer-Verlag went smoothly thanks to the prompt,
clear, and helpful communications from Evelien Bakker and Bernadette Deelen.
CarolHamill(Victoria,BC)constructedtheindex;herworkremindedmewhyit’s
generallyagoodideatogotoaprofessional.
In 1993, in the early stages of this project, I had the privilege of spending a
stimulatingsabbaticaltermintheDepartmentofDemography,UniversityofRome
(LaSapienza),attheinvitationofAntonellaPinelli.GraziellaCaselli,ofthesame
department, would later encourage my work on the model-based approach to
teaching demography by invitations to present at two International Union for the
Scientific Study of Population (IUSSP) meetings on the subject, with papers later
publishedinGenusunderhereditorship(seeChaps.11and12).
During her tenure as Director of the Center for Studies in Demography and
Ecology, University of Washington, Martina Morris invited me to become a
Regional Affiliate of the center and encouraged my participation in a year-long
seriesofseminaroncomputermodelingandsimulation.Itwasduringvisitstothe
CSDEthatIfirstbecameawareofAdrianRaftery’spapersonthe“twoculturesof
xi
